How to effectively respond to environmental rollbacks

Key takeaways

  • The sustainability community hasn’t responded well to the Trump administration’s full-court press on eviscerating sustainability due to a lack of innovative thinking.
  • Part of the reason is because the sustainability agenda is too complex and confusing for consumers and voters to understand and support.
  • A sustainability strategy reset with innovative solutions is critical for future success, including the ability to show what successful sustainability looks like, bring grassroots organizing to the national level, and build a new narrative that broadens public support.

The Trump administration began its second term with a bang that the sustainability community was ill-prepared to meet. Despite plenty of advance notice of Donald Trump’s plans to eviscerate environmental, energy and budget initiatives, sustainability professionals were caught off guard. Several factors explain the poorly organized and inept response by sustainability advocates:

  • There was no compelling narrative that presented a coherent, unified message of the previous administration’s sustainability initiatives. Rather, the Biden administration and stakeholder communities focused on implementing discrete policy initiatives such as increasing the number of electric vehicle charging stations and upping regulatory controls of greenhouse gas emissions that take years to reap benefits. Consumers and voters saw few near-term benefits, leaving many of them receptive to Trump’s counter-arguments about combating inflation and advancing living standards.
  • Collaboration within the sustainability community was balkanized and focused largely on advancing too many issues at once such as ESG, expanded reporting, decarbonization and infrastructure improvements. No broader effort was undertaken to engage the public on benefits of sustainability initiatives, much less anticipate how to respond to the agenda of a second Trump administration.
  • Tactics employed by environmental NGOs and their allies in response to Trump’s “flood the zone” initiatives were too traditional and limited for such a dramatic steamrolling of policy and agency shutdowns. These include lawsuits, fundraising appeals, letter writing and petitions, op-eds and other activities in the communications tool box. While useful, they weren’t sufficient to deter the Trump administration’s determination to advance its agenda.
  • The sustainability agenda is too complex and confusing and contains too many second-tier issues to resonate with the broader public. Between intricate reporting schemes and initiatives that lack specific goals, metrics and timelines, it’s difficult to assess whether meaningful results are achieved.

From ineptitude to innovation

Over the past few decades, the sustainability community has prioritized playing an insiders’ policy-driven game. While victories have been achieved, this strategy has created major vulnerabilities — namely that a large percentage of the electorate doesn’t understand the sustainability agenda. To push back against the current steamrolling, we need a more innovative strategy. Here are three ways to move beyond doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results:

  • Identify what successful sustainability looks like. In a recent paper by Systemiq, Jeremy Oppenheim argues that the sustainability movement needs “shock therapy” that focuses on “the promise of a better life, and an abundant, thriving and safe home for all.” At the same time, sustainability needs to provide “a practical contribution to near-term political priorities” by pulling climate out of the culture wars. To do this, sustainability leaders need to present a new national face for the movement that humanizes and refames how people can benefit from a more sustainable world via jobs, better health and overall prosperity. The public understands the significance of competition but hasn’t heard sustainability initiatives referenced in the context of improving U.S. infrastructure, for example.
  • Expand grassroots capabilities to the national level to engage more effectively. Many of today’s sustainability leaders weren’t around for the last successful time grassroots efforts really succeeded at a nationallevel: in the 1960s, with lobbying efforts to abate air and water pollution via federal clean air and clean water legislation. It’s now time for a sustainability strategy to build from the increasingly successful efforts that are already occurring at the grassroots level. And there are signs that the nation is ready: Post-November election results in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin and the large Hands Off turnout around the nation have demonstrated that local voices are ready to mobilize on behalf of mainstream causes at a level beyond what’s in their backyard.
  • Adopt a new sustainability vocabulary that fits the modern era. Expanding the sustainability agenda’s base of supporters will require a much broader coalition beyond the many elites that currently drive its policy agenda. And these new alliances will require a new language to encompass the range of more diverse interests represented. Terms such as “sustainability,” “ESG,” and “DEI,” that are poorly understood by consumers and voters and vulnerable to political exploitation need to be rethought in favor of language that is more accessible and commands broader public understanding and support.

Trying to limit Trump’s environmental rollbacks plays a useful role, but for a longer-lasting effect on the field of sustainability, leaders need to regroup, initiate a strategy reset and establish more goals for evaluating success. After all, it’s not as if trends in climate change, biodiversity, plastic waste and other major challenges were improving even pre-Trump.

The post How to effectively respond to environmental rollbacks appeared first on Trellis.

EU simplifies reporting requirements for deforestation regulation

Key takeaways

  • The scale back relaxes the rules for companies importing specific commodities into the bloc.
  • The change is a result of corporate lobbying that claimed the initial standards were expensive and burdensome.
  • The regulation is the latest of many to be diluted around the globe.

The European Union walked back mandates placed on commodities that were meant to mitigate the impact of associated deforestation, following a growing global trend of corporate climate disclosure simplifications.

On April 16, the European Commission released amendments documenting the simplification of the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). A response to the estimated 15 billion trees cut down each year for commercial usage, EUDR mandates that companies ensure that their products do not originate from land that had experienced deforestation or forest degradation since Dec. 31, 2020.

EUDR, along with the EU’s Corporate Responsibility Sustainability Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD), positioned the EU as a leading global enforcer of corporate sustainability reporting.

The recent changes include the identification of products and by-products as in or out of scope, the clarification that all waste and second-hand products are not within scope of EUDR, and the distinction that packing material and containers for sale are in scope, while packing material and containers used to ship products can be excluded from all reporting.

Additionally, companies now only need submit due diligence reports once a year, and can resubmit previous reports for reimported goods.

Products within scope of EUDR include cattle, coca, coffee, palm oil and rubber, among others.

Why did EUDR scale back?

A shift towards the right in parliament, plus lobbying from impacted industries, triggered the changes.

“Many companies still lack the capabilities needed to meet the law’s specific requirements,” said Pierre-Francois Thaler, co-founder and co-CEO of EcoVadis, “and their suppliers often aren’t equipped to gather or report the necessary data.”

These capabilities include supply chain tracing and data-system connectivity, according to Thaler.

Noncompliance risks losing access to the EU market, fines and legal action, and potential reputation damage. A September 2022 poll found that 73 percent of European consumers tend to avoid brands linked to deforestation.

Deregulating trends

The EUDR easing follows recent scale backs of the CSRD and CSDD. In March, the EU released its Omnibus package, proposing weaker mandates than were in the original versions. All three amendments are being received with mixed results.

On the one hand: “The EU is recalibrating several sustainability regulations to make implementation more practical and achievable at scale,” said Thaler. Back in 2024, 28 trade associations sent an open letter to the European Commission urging the body to delay the implementation of EUDR. But others do not agree.

On the other hand: “Reducing the reporting requirements from every batch to merely once a year is the pendulum swinging extremely from one side to the other, raising concerns about how effective monitoring and enforcement can still be,” said Antonie Fountain, director of the VOICE Network.

[Join more than 5,000 professionals at Trellis Impact 25 — the center of gravity for doers and leaders focused on action and results, Oct. 28-30, San Jose.]

The post EU simplifies reporting requirements for deforestation regulation appeared first on Trellis.

ChargePoint taps recycling exec to build sustainability program

Key takeaways

  • Mike Schwartz is the company’s first formal hire responsible for ESG issues.
  • His job will include helping customers use data in their own emissions accounting.

Send news about sustainability leadership roles, promotions and departures to [email protected].

ChargePoint, which operates one of the world’s largest electric vehicle charging networks, named former recycling executive Mike Schwartz to be its first director of sustainability.

Schwartz reports to ChargePoint’s senior vice president of operations. He’s responsible for building the company’s corporate sustainability function, starting with conducting ChargePoint’s first materiality assessment and creating baseline measures of its current practices related to environmental, social and governance issues. 

In addition, Schwartz will be the publicly traded company’s primary contact for investors and other stakeholders, including commercial customers. In that role he will help companies collect data that they can apply toward their emissions reductions goals for transportation and logistics.   

“By building out our sustainability program and the heavily demanding reporting that will come with it, we’ll enable our corporate customers to accurately and precisely report the actual and avoided emissions from their electric fleets,” Schwartz said.

Despite policy headwinds faced by electric vehicles under President Trump’s administration, the company plans to install hundreds of ultrafast charging stations this year at strategic locations across the U.S., in collaboration with General Motors. As of July 2024, ChargePoint supported more than 1 million charging parts in Europe and North America.

Like many other EV industry companies, however, post-election economic conditions have not been kind. ChargePoint reported $417.1 million in revenue for its fiscal year ended Jan. 31, off 18 percent from $506.6 million. The company’s stock price closed at $0.51 on May 5, near its 52-week low.

Schwartz was most recently manager of ESG reporting for Republic Services, a $16 billion company that manages 74 recycling centers and 18,000 waste hauling trucks. His previous roles also include a three-and-a-half-year stint in consulting with ESG ratings firm EcoVadis.

[Connect with more than 3,500 professionals decarbonizing and future-proofing their organizations and supply chains through climate technologies at VERGE, Oct. 28-30, San Jose.]

The post ChargePoint taps recycling exec to build sustainability program appeared first on Trellis.

Benchmarking effort reveals food industry’s leaders and laggards

Key takeaways

  • The industry is making solid progress on core disclosure and target-setting measures.
  • Forward-looking companies are setting targets for methane and quantifying the impact of reduction strategies.
  • Retailers tend to score more poorly than food brands.

The latest food-industry benchmarking exercise from the non-profit Ceres provides an opportunity for companies in the sector to figure out if they’re a leader, laggard or somewhere in between. 

The organization looked at 50 of the largest food and agriculture companies in North America, assessing each on their emissions targets and disclosures. Companies that achieved threshold scores for disclosure and target-setting were then assessed for other indicators, including procurement strategy and customer engagement.

Table stakes

The two core indicators covering targets and disclosure can be seen as table stakes in discussions of climate commitments. 

On the disclosure side, the Ceres team looked at three metrics: published data for Scope 3 emissions from goods and services, agriculture and land-use change. For targets, the metrics were whether Scope 3 data was included and if the target was aligned with 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. An overview reveals:

  • 32 of the 50 companies achieved at least partial success on the two indicators.
  • Nine companies achieved all five metrics: Campbell’s, Danone, General Mills, Hershey, McDonald’s, Mondelez International, Nestlé, Starbucks and Yum! Brands.
  • Eight companies did not hit any of the five metrics: BJ’s Wholesale Holdings, Bloomin’ Brands, Darden Restaurants, Flowers Food, Kroger, Loblaw Companies, Performance Food Group and Texas Roadhouse.

Beyond the basics

When Ceres first benchmarked food and ag firms in 2021, “barely any companies were disclosing Scope 3,” said Carolyn Ching, who directs the organization’s research on food and forests. As Scope 3 disclosure has become more common, Ceres has added metrics to its exercise to capture more advanced steps that leaders are taking:

  • Climate scenario analyses aligned with 1.5 C of warming help identify risk and opportunities in the transition toward a more resilient food system, Ceres argues. Archer-Daniel Midlands, Compass Group and Post Holdings are among 16 companies that have conducted such analyses.
  • Emissions of methane and nitrous oxide — from livestock and fertilizer, respectively — are a particular problem in food and ag. Three companies have recognized this by setting gas-specific targets: Nestlé and Danone for methane, Campbell’s for nitrous oxide.
  • Quantifying the expected impact of specific reduction strategies allows companies to manage risk and create value, the report suggests. Amid the five companies that have done so, “General Mills stands out with its Climate Action Transition Plan that discloses reduction amounts by category and provides implementation timelines,” according to the report.

Sector trends

The Ceres team did not rank companies across all the metrics, arguing that do so would involve attaching arbitrary weights to the indicators. But broad trends can be discerned from the data. They include:

  • Half of the 18 companies that were not ranked on the additional measures — because they did not score highly enough on the basic disclosure and targets indicators — were retailers.
  • Food brands tended to rank higher. Ching suggests this may be because retailers work with a broad set of products, while food brands are closer to agricultural producers and more able to drive down supply chain emissions.
  • The sector as a whole continues to perform poorly on some disclosure metrics. Not a single company has committed to aligning its capital and operating expenditure with its emissions reduction targets, and no company has fully disclosed its progress for addressing emissions from acquisitions and divestments.

[Join a vibrant community of leaders and innovators driving cutting-edge tools, business strategies, and partnerships to protect and regenerate nature at Bloom, Oct. 28-30, San Jose.]

The post Benchmarking effort reveals food industry’s leaders and laggards appeared first on Trellis.

‘I feel like I’m 11 years old again’: Sustainability professionals respond to 100 days of Trump

If you’re feeling discouraged, frustrated, uncertain or disheartened, you are hardly alone. Last Wednesday, the 100th day of the Trump administration, we asked the Trellis community how their feelings about working in corporate sustainability have changed over the past year. More than three-quarters (76 percent) of the 244 readers who responded reported that their feelings have become more negative.

“I’m proud and determined but angry and frustrated at how much harder and confusing things have become,” one reader replied to our invitation to explain their response.  “We have important work to do, and we collectively don’t have time to slow down and be distracted by dealing with the chaos.”

For some, the changes in government policy spurred powerful emotional reactions.

“I feel like I’m 11 years old again, trying to navigate shaky waters as my parents were constantly fighting,” said a corporate social responsibility reporting manager in Arizona. “I just want to do my job and make the world a place we all deserve to live in.”

Others pointed to financial and career insecurity.

“I’m always in suspense, waiting for the next executive order to stab another knife in the work I’ve dedicated my life to,” wrote one consultant. “I feel constantly under pressure from clients asking how to deal with the new administration’s actions.”

‘More determined than ever’

Of readers who reported more positive (10 percent) or neutral (14 percent) feelings about sustainability work, many described growing resolve in the face of a hostile environment.

“I’m more determined than ever to make sustainable changes and help the movement,” said Dawna Mirante, owner of Refill Mercantile. “We need to counter what the other side is doing, and I’m up for it.” (The respondents were invited, but not required, to publish their names with their comments.)

Others reported feeling better because businesses are adopting a more realistic balance between economic and environmental goals. 

“I feel like this is an opportunity to reset — to move away from the often-empty slogans and wish casting (and greenwashing) to try to identify sustainability opportunities that make actual business sense,” said Alan Scheller-Wolf, a professor of operations management at the Tepper School of Business of Carnegie Mellon University.

Many more readers, however, said they were deeply disturbed by the administration’s choice to emphasize increased fossil fuel production over mitigating climate change.

“I love working in sustainability and feeling a sense of purpose from my work, but now I feel so much anxiety that all of the progress and hard work will be undone due to short-sighted and misinformed policy choices,” said a typical comment. “I worry that we will no longer be able to prevent major climate catastrophe.”

The great unraveling

Readers also told us that many companies they work for and do business with have slowed or abandoned their efforts to reduce their climate impact, reacting to uncertain economic prospects and the broader backlash against the ESG movement as well as the administration’s change in environmental policy.

“The uncertainty and tariff policy of the Trump administration is causing my company to pull back resources — people and spending,” wrote one sustainability manager. “It feels like many things I’ve been working on are unraveling or becoming inconsequential.”

The experience of working at companies that are scaling back their sustainability efforts evoked many emotions from readers: Anger and disappointment at their leaders, as well as fear for their own job security.

“As we see the politicization of climate change, the financial outflows to sustainability, growing greenhushing and the flip-flopping of CEOs to cozy up to the president and Elon Musk, it makes me feel like my job and the entire practice is at risk,” one reader wrote. 

Even those working at companies that have maintained their sustainability efforts report having lost the respect, cooperation and resources they need to do their jobs.

“Corporate sustainability has been an uphill paddle ever since I started 25 years ago,” one professional wrote. “I had been excited that we had finally built legitimacy and momentum, but now I feel like there are forces deliberately trying to sink the boat. “

The post ‘I feel like I’m 11 years old again’: Sustainability professionals respond to 100 days of Trump appeared first on Trellis.

Google CSO Kate Brandt: ‘We need to expand how we’re talking about this’

The tech giant’s chief sustainability officer reflects on how she’ll make the most of this critical time, drawing upon the two decades she’s been working to advance sustainability, in the debut episode of Two Steps Forward, a biweekly podcast.

Plus, we answer the question: Why are creative people more optimistic?

Soon to celebrate 10 years at Google — preceded by sustainability leadership roles at the White House and Defense Department — Kate Brandt talked with my co-host Solitaire Townsend, co-founder and “chief solutionist” at Futerra, and me in a wide-ranging conversation about this moment in sustainable business and the role of technology in accelerating sustainability goals.

“I think we’re certainly facing some crosswinds, but I remain really optimistic,” she said.

Among the key opportunities she pointed out:

The role of tech — and AI

“I’ve been so privileged to sit inside of a technology company and to work on this issue for nearly a decade,” Brandt said. “And look at how far we’ve come. Look at the advances we’ve made in energy. We now have advanced nuclear, advanced geothermal, massive scaling of wind and solar. Costs have come down dramatically. So, I remain very focused, and I think we need to keep going.”

It’s not just energy tech. Not surprisingly, artificial intelligence is high on Brandt’s and her company’s agenda as a means of tackling thorny sustainability challenges. She referred to AI’s “superpowers”: synthesizing, analyzing, optimizing and predicting vast amounts of information.

One promising application she cited is in the condensation trails — “contrails” — of aircraft, which represent about 1 percent of greenhouse emissions, according to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

“We’ve done work with American Airlines and Breakthrough Energy to use AI to better understand why is that actually happening,” she explained. “It’s a combination of factors. It’s elevation, it’s time of day, it’s temperature. And then we did 70 test flights with American and with very small incremental AI recommended changes, really just in altitude, they were able to reduce contrails by more than half. That’s the kind of thing that’s getting me excited.”

The power of communicating more effectively

Beyond technology, Brandt said, is the key role of communicating about sustainability. “We could do a better job of not only preaching to the converted and talking to people who think in terms of CO2e — which is like a very, very small percent of people, although I love us and I’m one of them — but really talking in a much more inclusive way about why are we doing this. What’s at stake here? When we’re looking at cities and traffic lights, can we make air quality better so my neighbor’s kid with asthma can be more healthy?

“We need to expand how we’re talking about this. We need to really lean into why this is meaningful, not just for those of us who already really care about the planet and the environment but for literally every single human being. So that’s what I want to work on.”

Subscribe to Two Steps Forward here, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

The post Google CSO Kate Brandt: ‘We need to expand how we’re talking about this’ appeared first on Trellis.

Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr.: Let’s turn ‘cancer alley’ into opportunity alley

“I’m excited for this moment,” Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr., president and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus, an advocacy group that works for racial, economic and climate justice, told us right off the bat. “It’s a tough moment, but I’m excited for it,” he said, citing the group’s 20-year history of harnessing culture and storytelling to “shape our political experience.”

In this episode of the Two Steps Forward podcast, Yearwood reflected on his organization’s journey leveraging culture to address major social and environmental challenges, particularly those impacting frontline communities.

Plus, we talk about how the music industry is stepping up to embrace sustainability.

Founded just before Hurricane Katrina, the nonprofit Hip Hop Caucus was built on the premise that the hip hop generation is uniquely positioned to drive change by combining cultural expression with political engagement. For example, the group’s “Think 100%” campaign aims to raise awareness of how pollution disproportionately impacts Black, Brown, Indigenous and underserved communities, particularly in so-called “Cancer Alley,” the 85-mile stretch of communities along the banks of the Mississippi River between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, where communities exist side by side with some 200 fossil fuel and petrochemical operations. 

Music to inform and inspire

Yearwood emphasized that the caucus was initially focused on promoting democracy and voter turnout among young people, but its mission quickly expanded to encompass a wide range of issues, including climate justice, economic justice and civil rights. The organization uses music, art and storytelling as powerful tools to inform, inspire and mobilize communities.

Yearwood described how music has informed social change, from gospel to bluegrass to rock ‘n’ roll. Critically, he explained the distinction between political and cultural conversations, noting that while politics can create divisions, culture has the power to build bridges.

“Our rallies would have like eight people,” he told my co-host Solitaire Townsend and me. “But then when we had these artists show up like LL Cool J,” and suddenly the venues would be packed. “So that was really the lightbulb moment,” how artists and celebrities can spread environmental messages to audiences of color. The group maintains a stable of two dozen or so “artivists” who help educate audiences.

How companies can show up right now

Which brought us to business, communications and storytelling. For Yearwood, storytelling is as critical to business success as almost anything else.

“If you’re a business and you’re not a good storyteller, you won’t be a good business,” he said. “That’s sales 101. You can’t sell anything if you can’t explain why somebody actually needs what you’re trying to sell. So being a great storyteller is essential.”

“We have focused on folks being revolutionary in the climate space, which is fine. But what we really need now in the business space to be solutionary,” he told us. “I believe that we can take a community like Cancer Alley and turn it into Opportunity Alley using that same area to create different types of businesses,” such as in the renewable sector. 

“There’s many, many things that can be done that we can create opportunities for people that don’t mean that they’re getting sick or worse, dying at a very young age.”

On joy and love

Yearwood also talked about the relationship between creativity and optimism. He posited that creative individuals are more likely to be optimistic because they can envision alternative futures and solutions. He noted that while businesses may not use these terms explicitly, they still aim to connect with people on an emotional level.

Whether selling a product or advocating for change, the most effective communications tap into universal human desires for connection, satisfaction, and meaning, he said. “Through culture, creativity and authentic storytelling, both [activist] movements and businesses can inspire action and build a better future.”

Subscribe to Two Steps Forward here, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

The post Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr.: Let’s turn ‘cancer alley’ into opportunity alley appeared first on Trellis.

Sustainable aviation fuel plans under fire over crop emissions

Key takeaways

  • World Resources Institute urges U.S. policymakers and businesses to exclude corn and soybean fuels from plans to decarbonize aviation.
  • Industry places both sources at the heart of expansion of sustainable aviation fuel use.
  • State and federal regulators will likely be the key arbiters that shape company decisions.

For business flights that can’t be avoided, there’s only one near-term mitigation option: Sustainable aviation fuel (SAF), a lower-carbon alternative to fossil jet fuel. 

Scaling SAF is the focus of the global strategy to decarbonize aviation, but researchers at the World Resources Institute (WRI) are urging a rethink of how the U.S. plans to do so. In a new report, the WRI team argues that when a more holistic approach is used to assess SAF production, two crops that are essential to scaling supply — corn and soy — are found to create more emissions than conventional fossil fuels.

The crops “are not a viable strategy for decarbonizing aviation,” said Audrey Denvir, a WRI research associate and an author of the report.

SAF advocates disputed the report’s conclusions, saying the researchers failed to distinguish between global averages and data on more sustainable biofuel crops grown in the U.S.

Scaling supply

Almost all SAF is currently produced from used cooking oil and other inedible biomass, and is broadly agreed to lead to real carbon savings when it displaces fossil jet fuel. But current production is tiny: The U.S. produces around 1 percent of the quantity needed to hit a government target of 3 billion gallons of domestic production by 2030, according to a 2024 Department of Energy report.

With limited additional waste oil available, the industry in the U.S. is relying on purpose-grown soy and corn to drive near-term growth. “Purpose-grown crops could constitute the majority of the supply within six to 10 years,” estimated Adam Klauber, who oversees sustainability and digital supply chains at World Energy, an SAF producer. 

To qualify as SAF, fuels produced from these crops need to emit no more than 50 percent of the emissions from fossil jet fuel. Many in the industry say they do, but the researchers argue that assessment rests on faulty accounting.

In a report released last week on how biomass can be used to decarbonize the U.S. economy, the researchers used a metric called “carbon opportunity cost” to calculate spillover impacts of fuel crops. As global demand for food grows, dedicating land for this purpose leads to forests and other native ecosystems being converted to agriculture, releasing additional emissions in the process. The fuels “actually increase emissions once you really account for all of the land use,” said Denvir. The European Union already excludes most biofuel crops from its SAF targets for similar reasons. 

‘Context is everything’

Industry figures questioned key details of the analysis. Klauber argued that relying on global averages for the impacts of biofuel crops overlooks the higher performance of crops grown in the U.S. “Context is everything,” he said. In the case of soy production, for example, Klauber said the researchers used a carbon intensity figure that was several times higher than the one other academic and environmental organizations use. 

Specific farming practices are also critical, he added. For example, biofuels can be grown either alongside and simultaneously with food crops, or during the shoulder season on either side of them. “That is broadly accepted as a sustainable practice, but it’s not yet at commercial scale,” said Klauber. “We’re working to increase that, because that really will be a way to increase the productivity of land without impacting food.”

A handful of organizations hold sway in determining which argument should govern growth of SAF in the U.S. The federal government, which oversees a clean energy tax credit known as 45Z that can apply to SAF, is unlikely to back more stringent environmental rules under the current administration. Regulators such as the California Air Resources Board also control certification schemes for SAF. 

“The larger problem is on the demand side where business customers and buyers’ groups might exclude specific allowable feedstocks from contracts based on the perceived-negative public perception regarding soy or corn,” noted Klauber.

The post Sustainable aviation fuel plans under fire over crop emissions appeared first on Trellis.

Poll: Concern over climate change remains strong in Trump’s first 100 days

Key takeaways

  • American concern about climate change has remained steady since the election, despite government efforts to rollback many climate initiatives.
  • Despite economic and political challenges, concern about climate change in the U.S. remains at a historic high.
  • Companies must cut through the noise and stay focused on the issues that matter most to consumers.

In our four decades of work, we have rarely seen such widespread uncertainty and instability in the operating environment — a reality that many professionals are faced with today. Leaders around the world are asking: what’s truly changed and what remains constant? To shed some light on this question, Trellis data partner GlobeScan conducted a flash poll of 1,000 consumers in the United States, asking them how serious they viewed the issues of climate change or global warming.

GlobeScan’s tracking of concerns reveals that Americans continue to be as concerned about climate change as they were before the 2024 election. From a long-term tracking perspective, concern about climate change remains at historic highs in the U.S. Despite the current political climate and economic challenges, Americans’ concern about climate change has only slightly diminished compared to seven months ago, with half of Americans still considering climate change to be “very serious.”

What this means

These findings reflect the resilience of American values around sustainability. Beyond concern about climate change specifically, our research shows that the broader environmental and social values held by Americans have remained steadfast, even amid recent political and economic turbulence. This enduring public commitment suggests that societal opinion — a critical foundation for advancing sustainability — remains strong. For organizations, this signals a clear imperative: stay aligned with the issues that matter most to consumers or risk losing both relevance and trust.

Based on a poll of more than 1,000 Americans conducted March 25-28, 2025.

The post Poll: Concern over climate change remains strong in Trump’s first 100 days appeared first on Trellis.

Lessons from Patagonia and Apple on selling circularity

Key takeaways

  • Many brands excel at curtain-raising ads but fail to sustain emotional connections through a product’s lifecycle.
  • Using storytelling frameworks such as the three-act structure can transform how companies engage consumers beyond the point of sale.
  • Ads for Apple’s Genius Bar and messaging for Patagonia’s Worn Wear show how to leverage narratives that celebrate reuse, repair and meaningful endings.

Madison Avenue has ruled minds and wallets for generations by selling “new” or “improved.” Social media influencers continue that legacy with fast fashion hauls and unboxing videos.

But brands must escape this rut to sell circular products and services, according to veterans of legendary campaigns who spoke at Circularity 25 in Denver on April 30. And they’ll find a useful framework in the three-act dramatic structure innovated by the ancient Greeks.

Marketers and advertisers have mastered Act 1, which introduces a company’s offering. In commercials, for instance, dramatic outdoor backdrops and music glorify the genesis of mundane new items, such as yoga pants or running shoes.

“The second act would build that story through plot points and build up to a crescendo,” said Joe Macleod, a former design lead at Nokia. “And that third act would bring meaning and emotion to a conclusion.” he said.

Acts 2 and 3, though, are rarely told in modern marketing messaging.

“Brands just drop off a cliff,” said Andy Ruben, founder and executive chairman of Trove of Burlingame, California. “There’s such a gigantic opportunity space to add meaning and emotion in those second two acts, because stories need balance.”

Apple’s dramatic journey

Apple has mastered the art of storytelling across all three acts, according to Ruben and Macleod, who presented this trio of TV commercials:

An Act 1 example, introducing new Mac computers in 2006:

“Hello, I’m a Mac,” says actor Justin Long.

“I’m a PC,” says humorist John Hodgman.

“Ready to get started?”

An Act 2 example, from 2007, introducing the Genius Bar:

“Hello, I’m a Mac,” says Long.“

And I’m a PC,” says Hodgman.

“And I’m a Mac genius,” says a woman actor, uncredited.

An Act 3 example — which opens with iPhone images of pregnancy and childbirth — introducing the concept of circularity:

“You’ve done great things with your iPhone but at some point, you’ll be ready for something new. You can easily trade it in with Apple so it can be refurbished … But if your device is at the very end of its life, materials inside will be recovered and recycled … Do one last great thing with it.”

Apple has long understood the need to tell stories beyond the beginning, to see a brand relationship as long lasting, explained Chris Riley, Apple’s senior director of marketing communications at the time of those commercials. 

“[Most brands] just don’t know how to stay in this relationship with you as you go through the experience of finishing the use of that product,” said Riley, who now runs Studioriley in Portland, Oregon.

Apple’s “second act” story, on the other hand, continued the brand relationship beyond point of sale by offering in-person interactions in Apple stores.

The evolution of Patagonia’s second act

Patagonia’s Worn Wear program, which helped to popularize its branded resale and repair services, is another second-act story.

Worn Wear, formerly called Common Threads, evolved from a small clothing recycling effort in 2005. Then, in 2011 Patagonia took out a now-iconic full-page “Don’t buy this jacket” ads on Black Friday. Paradoxically, sales ticked up, especially among consumers new to the brand, said Nellie Cohen, Worn Wear’s architect.

But that approach didn’t have legs, focused as it was on the facts and figures of waste. “It’s really, really hard to keep that narrative going, because it’s not a narrative, it’s actually education,” said Cohen, who has since founded the Ojai, California, consultancy Baleen.

A Tumblr blog by Lauren Malloy helped the company refocus. Malloy featured real-world stories detailing what people’s Patagonia gear meant to their families. That led the clothing retailer to try a new phrase for Black Friday 2013: “Better than new.” 

“We celebrated the stuff people already owned, which is a marked change from ‘Don’t buy this jacket. Don’t buy what you don’t need’ to ‘That’s cool. We got old stuff. Let’s have a party about it,’” she said.

In Act 2, Ruben explained, the “company recognizes that we buy things because we have something else going on, a desire to be outside, a desire to camp, desire to bike somewhere, to be healthier, to look better.”

Patagonia started Worn Wear tours in 2015. Company reps in quirky vehicles drove around the country selling used items and fixing busted ones for free. Consumers watched mendings in real time. By the end of 2018, Patagonia was repairing 100,000 garments globally.

To date, Worn Wear has sold about 140,000 items on its branded secondhand site, using Trove as its logistics backbone.

How to master Act 3

Macleod homed in on how business storytellers can embrace the “final act” in his 2002 book, “Endineering: Designing Consumption Lifecycles That End as Well as They Begin.”

Riley advocated for building an emotional meaning onto the “ends” of products. He presented the tear-jerking finale of the 1994 film “The Shawshank Redemption,” in which Morgan Freeman’s character boards a bus for the Pacific coast, reflecting on past challenges. That theme echoes Apple’s end-of-use ad, which plays an iPhone reel of a new family forming.

The third act can be about finding closure by doing one last thing, according to Riley. 

In contrast, consider the symbol of a waste bin with a line through it. This represents the European Union’s Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment rules around disposing used electronics. 

“What’s it say to the consumer? ‘Don’t throw it in the bin,’” Riley said. “So many of our experiences for the consumer are dead ends: ‘Don’t do this. You shouldn’t do that.’”

In other words: Popular culture lacks a vocabulary for getting rid of stuff, which is why self storage is such a big business, Riley noted.  

But finding the meaning in endings is a good beginning.

The post Lessons from Patagonia and Apple on selling circularity appeared first on Trellis.